A claim for relief based on proprietary estoppel is not a claim for damages. It is based on prevention of detriment and is not compensatory in nature. Accordingly, there is no risk of double recovery in a proprietary estoppel claim and a claim for damages for unlawful eviction under sections 27 and 28 of the Housing Act 1988.
In Wilson v Wilson and another [2023] EW Misc 5 (CC), the claimant brought a claim for damages for unlawful eviction and a proprietary estoppel against her son and daughter-in-law.
The claimant alleged that the defendants had unlawfully evicted her from a property she occupied in Notton, Wakefield, that was owned by the defendants.
The claimant asserted that she occupied the property pursuant to a promise made by the defendants that she could occupy the property for life if she paid for renovations to the property.
At trial, the defendants alleged that the claimant had voluntarily and permanently moved out of the property to live elsewhere and had no intention of returning.
The defendants admitted changing the locks, but only for insurance purposes.
The court was satisfied on the evidence that the claimant had an intention to return to the property and had shown an outward sign of her continued occupation. She had notified her solicitors of her wish to remain living at the property and had left a significant number of her possessions in situ.
Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the court was satisfied that the criminal standard of proof did not apply to the test for whether an absence from the property was permanent or temporary under section 27.
In calculating damages under section 28, the court was persuaded by the discounted cash flow method adopted by the claimant’s valuer, as opposed to the reversionary approach used by the defendants’ valuer.
The diminution in value of the property with the claimant’s right to occupy for life when compared with the value of the property with vacant possession immediately prior to eviction was assessed at £148,000.
The claimant’s proprietary estoppel also succeeded. The court found that she had spent £73,000 in redecorating the property based on the defendants’ representations. It would be unconscionable to allow them to renege on the same.
Equity in this case would best be served not in requiring the defendants to adhere to their promise, but in repaying the claimant the sum of £73,000 she had spent on renovating the property.
The defendants alleged that the award of damages for unlawful eviction and the sum awarded under the proprietary estoppel claim amounted to double recovery for the loss of occupation. This was rejected by the court. The claim for proprietary estoppel was not a claim for damages and was not compensatory in nature, even if the award was financial.
Elizabeth Dwomoh is a barrister at Lamb Chambers
